Unit Strengths by Era

[planetfall]

Stuie,

Granted for huge map you may need 40 workers. I have not found any problems with 20 for standard size maps. Often I can work well with 8 to 10 native workers. Usually this is combined with 20-40 slaves.

Have you found redoing tile improvements in conquered terrories after RR's to gain anything at all. Corruption and waste are so high and my games seem to end before any benefit from redoing improvements. The only one's I change is 1) roads to strategic/luxuries, 2) irrigate, and maybe if slow game 3) lumber for 2 culture generators.

-- PF

[Mad Bomber]

PF:

Worker Size is also dependent upon the type of a game you play. 40 workers on a huge map, is sufficient if you are playing a peaceful game, however if you want a substantial empire then a workforce of 40 is clearly insufficent. I typically play conquest games and a work force approaching 300 workers is fairly common. Workers also do more than change terrain and building roads/ railroads. They also can build airfields and radar towers (these become really important in the modern age) as well as outposts and fortifications. When playing on a 200 X 200 map with 23 other civ's to eliminate; spending 250gpt on a workforce is a pittance indeed (my total unit support is in the 1200's by endgame)

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
PF:

They also can build airfields and radar towers (these become really important in the modern age) as well as outposts and fortifications. When playing on a 200 X 200 map with 23 other civ's to eliminate; spending 250gpt on a workforce is a pittance indeed (my total unit support is in the 1200's by endgame)

Ok, I have not played your game size map nor with 23 civs, so I will take your word for it. On standard size map outposts seem a waste. With fewer than 12 civs, I have only a couple of times found value in fortifications. The Marriott line didn't hold and I don't rely on fortications to hold.

Which is a better value for cost:
A-- capture city, rush temple, airport, lib, barracks, or
B-- capture city and build airfield outside city?

Since airfields can't have Radar Towers, they seem like too much of a target. At least with cities, I can have defensive values.

Radar is helpful, but if I have to rely on Radar; I really screwed up the game play earlier.

I don't always play a peaceful game. I used to have more workers to hurry up improvements in newly conquered territories. But then finally realized, they were not helping me eough. Waste and corruption killed the effectiveness of any city captured after 1300 AD. Now my style is to only keep cities with a strategic or needed luxury resource or key geographical location. I close down the rest and concentrate on a larger military.

But then, always open to hearing alternative strategics for playing this game.


-- PF

[alexman]

Die finally, silly obsolete thread!


I can't believe a two-year old thread is proudly showcased at the top of this forum!

[planetfall]

Yeah!! Go figure. At least we are talking about C3 and not C2.

You know the solutions:
--add value to another thread
--open a new better thread
--change your thread sort preferences


-- PF

[Mad Bomber]

PF:

Yes, outposts are pitiful; but the true value of Airfields and Radar towers become apparent when lauching intercontinental invasions in which you cannot land all of your forces in one turn (how many of us happen to have 50-60 transports lying around?) . Airfields also make reinforcement and follow on forces proceed more rapidly to your initially vulnerable beachhead. Rt's I tend to build whenever there is a slack in the tempo of combat operations or if a civ has a modern military in which RT' s will give a slight edge to my forces. Finally for defensive purposes, build the airfield on a hill or mountain and supply it with a few good defenders. Airfields are also good on one tile islands in which you do not want to build a city on.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Finally for defensive purposes, build the airfield on a hill or mountain and supply it with a few good defenders. Airfields are also good on one tile islands in which you do not want to build a city on.

And Alexman wonders why we continue with old threads. You just supplied a new idea for the day. THANK YOU.

I missed the options of building an airfield on mt or 1 tile island. I'm going to have to give a Mt top airfield a try!

And yet a beachhead only needs 2 workers for conversion to RT.

No I don't use 50-60 transports, but I will use 5-10 for normandy invasions. Closer military in MA means more defensive units are required. Sometimes 40 units are not enough to hold a footing for the 3-4 turns until reinforcements are needed.


Hummmm, if use airfield, I would be able to get reinforcements in a few turns and would not have to worry about city flipping. Hummmmm.
Turn 1-- land, Turn 2-- airfield, Turn 3-- reinforcements. Hmmmm. Yep, that is better than: Turn 1-- land, Turn 2-- conquer city, Turn 3-- rush temple;
Turn 4-- run Library/barracks, Turn 5-- rush airport; Turn 6-- reinforcements start arrriving. Ok you convinced me, change in play is needed.


I also don't need a ton of airfields. One airport/airfield on foreign continent
does quite well. With RR's who needs more?

-- PF

[Mad Bomber]

PF:

One last point on airfields:

Using a worker for the airfield instead of rushing it in a city allows you to use the airfield on the same turn instead of waiting for the next turn when you rush. So in your example it would be

Turn one: Land (one worker needed in transport)
Turn two: Sacrifice worker for airfield, reinforce beachead.

[geniemalin]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Something I definitely wants back, preferably in developed form, is SMAC's system where mobile units got a bonus in open terrain, and infantry in bases (cities). That 1800s-style Riflemen are outclassed by Cav in open terrain is odd, but that the Cav are vastly better at capturing fortified cities is outrightly ridiculous.

There were quite a few SMAC features that would have been nice to see in CivIII (maybe we'll see them in CivIV?) but the way in which terrain and mobility interacted was one of the best.

Yes, CivIII does give higher attack value to mobile units and higher defence value to infantry (whereas the base offensive value of a SMAC unit just depended on its weapon) but as noted that unhistorically makes mobile units the ideal choice to capture cities!

Elevation affecting bombardment and/or artillery duels would be another nice feature to implement.

Of course, I probably should just go all the way and plug build-your-own-unit and build-your-own-political-system too

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
PF:

One last point on airfields:

So in your example it would be

Turn one: Land (one worker needed in transport)
Turn two: Sacrifice worker for airfield, reinforce beachead.

WOW 3 times faster!!!

I am playing my first huge map with 16 civs. This will definitely make landings easier.

Thanks.

-- PF

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by planetfall


Ok, I have not played your game size map nor with 23 civs, so I will take your word for it. On standard size map outposts seem a waste. With fewer than 12 civs, I have only a couple of times found value in fortifications. The Marriott line didn't hold and I don't rely on fortications to hold.

Which is a better value for cost:
A-- capture city, rush temple, airport, lib, barracks, or
B-- capture city and build airfield outside city?

-- PF

I would take choice 'A'. Always go for infrastructure.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Feephi


I would take choice 'A'. Always go for infrastructure.

I am now convinced to go for choice B.

I have had a couple of games where I lost the first landing It is way way too annoying to lose a force of 30 units. If you have reinforcements, you can
build cities and infrastructure. For me the key to a successful invasion, is being able to survive the first waves of counter attack, and develop a foothold.

6 turns for infrastructure vs 2 turns for airfield is too great of an advantage not to skip. Bottom line is building 2 cities is no good if you lose both of them within a couple turns.

-- PF

[Theseus]

Airfields ROCK... for IC invasions, the entire troop complement that is built during transit can be delivered to the battle field one turn after landing.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Theseus
Airfields ROCK... for IC invasions, the entire troop complement that is built during transit can be delivered to the battle field one turn after landing.

I tried first this weekend. Only caveat is they must be in neutral or owned territory for you lose them {and the forces on them????}. IC was sooooo much easier and less stressful. On a huge map I was concerned how it would work out.
No problem.

The ability to quickly reinforce also opens up more landing zones. No longer essential to have a hill city tile or to have radar towers next door. Now can plan IC landing zone based on which is more important: terrain defensive advantages or resource capture.

Again thanks all for the correcting of my strategy.

-- PF

[Arrian]

Wow, that tactic never occurred to me. I typically would either be invading earlier in the game (using the tried and true "land on a hill with a settler & damn near my entire army" approach) or I would get a foothold in peacetime by exploiting a gap or two in the AI's cultural borders after a war - thus giving me time to rushbuild all the necessary improvements.

-Arrian

[Xipe]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Catapults and Cannons are unimpressive -very cheap, but also very weak.

Walls are also unimpressive, for the same reason. This feels wrong: Ancient Walls were a formidable obstacle. This is also one more reason why you don´t need Catapults.

Special Bonuses are missing: Bombardment Units should ignore Walls (but Walls should be stronger). Spearmen/Pikes/Muskets/Rifles/MechInf should have a Defense Bonus against Fast Units.

Why not give walls Hit Points. Give a wall 1 HP for every 10% in defensive bonus - and only let bombarding units let them be demolished. A minimum could also be set (a wall can only be demolished to 15% of its original value. And after/during a siege the wall had to be rebuilt/healed much like a regular unit.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Theseus
Airfields ROCK... for IC invasions, the entire troop complement that is built during transit can be delivered to the battle field one turn after landing.

hi ,

the AI seems to learn a bit and scrambels his fighters , ....

solution ; get a carrier nearby to provide some cover , .....

have a nice day

[planetfall]

a carrier? 4 bombers won't do much. If need cover, you will need 2-5 carriers.

But with fast airfield reinforcement, air support is not as important.

-- PF

[Panag]

Originally posted by planetfall
a carrier? 4 bombers won't do much. If need cover, you will need 2-5 carriers.

But with fast airfield reinforcement, air support is not as important.

-- PF

hi ,

fighters bien sure , .....

and since most people mod carrier to hold at least six or more units , ....

have a nice day

[Theseus]

I think panag means Fighters on a Carrier... you need two turns of air cover before re-based Fighters can jump into the fray.

[planetfall]

Theseus,

2 turns of air cover? Never seen this. 1 turn for relocate. 2nd turn for activate AS. 3rd turn start AS. BUT, for AS of LZ need to have carrier(s) within 2 tiles.

AS only works for incoming air bombardment. Has AS been enchanced in Conquests to also include outgoing air bombardment? I have not seen this mentioned as a new feature.

AI scrambling fighters vs my bombers would not be countacted by fighters on carriers.

-- PF

[Panag]

Originally posted by planetfall
Theseus,

2 turns of air cover? Never seen this. 1 turn for relocate. 2nd turn for activate AS. 3rd turn start AS. BUT, for AS of LZ need to have carrier(s) within 2 tiles.

AS only works for incoming air bombardment. Has AS been enchanced in Conquests to also include outgoing air bombardment? I have not seen this mentioned as a new feature.

AI scrambling fighters vs my bombers would not be countacted by fighters on carriers.

-- PF

hi ,

well put them on AS before you sail into the combat zone , seems to work as well , ......

and make sure to protect your carrier or to sail it in or out of harms way , .....

have a nice day

[MysteryMan]

I will grant that Cavalry is overly powerful versus the AI, but IMHO that is because the AI does not know how to deal with a Cavalry offensive, and not because of the stats of the unit. "There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, there are only dangerous men." (This is also why it is not unrealistic for the occasional resourceful militia to destroy a tank. Where there's a will, there's a way.)
For example, let's suppose that I am defending against a Cavalry rush by another player (although the various Rushes are probably the weakest way IMHO to play)

1)I develop my cities MUCH better than the AI. So, if my city is over 6, my troops get a 50% bonus. By the time cavalry comes around, ALL my cities (all the ones I care about, anyways) are over pop 6. Thus, my 'weaker' Musketmen have effective defenses of 6, PLUS whatever terrain advantages I am sneaky enough to aquire (for example, forcing the attacker to attack across a river, or building my city on a hill). So we find that the WORST CASE scenario for me, the defender, is that each fight is even. Since my musketmen are cheaper (I think) than cavalry, and since my supply lines are shorter, the DEFENDER has every advantage but one: Cavalry retreat. This brings me to point #2.

2)The biggest advantage of Cavalry is it's movement. It goes three times as far in one turn as a defensive unit can. This means that the attacker should not be able to stack defensive units with his cavalry (and keep the advantage of speed, there is an old military adage about the one who 'gets there the fastest with the mostest'...) and thus they are very exposed to counter attacks. Since I develop my cities, most of them have a Cultural Influence of at least 3. This means that often his cavalry cannot enter my territory AND attack my city on the same turn. Good. More time for the defender to be devious Even if I still have knights, the odds are in my favor 4/3 (unless I am foolish enough to attack him on adverse terrain). Even if I have no Iron, I can still do this with Longbowmen. You may point out that I will lost more units than he, and this may be true (although there are more sneaky tricks I can employ). However, each of his units that goes to 1 hp and survives must retreat either to his turf or to the nearest unclaimed territory (unless he has Battlefield Medicine, but if he is going to leave a stack of cavalry fortified right next to my city, there will be a few less cavalry there by the time my turn is over...). The point here is that the attacker ONLY wins if he vanquishes the defender and takes and holds what he has aquired. Anything else is the defender's victory (except for a 'burnt ground' assault, but that is a special case). If I am the defender, time is on my side. Every turn he has his cavalry healing up is a turn that I am building more defensive units and laying more traps on his route to my city. Hey, this leads nicely to point #3...

3)If the attacker is outside your city gates, you have already lost half the battle. You should make it a regular practice (ESPECIALLY in times of war) to place units in powerful terrain and just leave them there. It is hard to give specific examples of this without being able to draw a map, but if there are, say, 2 mountain squares and 1 hill square either ON or ADJACENT TO the attacker's most direct route to my city, I will have (in peacetime) one fortified defensive unit in a fort with 1 piece of artillery and 2 cheap, short-ranged offensive units (like Longbowmen). In wartime, I will have as much more there as I can manage. I will often leave my core cities (far away from the front and the coast) with only one defensive unit in them so that I can do this.

So what happens is that he must get his Cavalry PAST my forts before he can reach my city.
"There are some positions which must never be assaulted." Make him assault those positions.
If he does not wipe out those forts, he has A)No escape for all those 1hp Cavalry, and B)No reinforcements (I am cutting off his lines of supply, he can only get reinforcements by if I let him). If he does stop and wipe out those forts, he will lose units, or at the least get damaged units (which take time to heal) and he will lost several turns, probably one turn minimum for each fort he must take. That means more time to beef up my cities, and maybe I will research Sanitation in that time. Oh, right, now on to point #4.

4)(I swear this is the last one)Once I have hospitals in my cities, my defenders get a 100% bonus. So his cavalry is now attacking my musketmen at 6 - 8, putting HIM at the disadvantage. So even if I DON'T have nationalism, I can STILL make him rue the day...
(By the way, I often skip nationalism, usually in favor of medicine/sanitation. I am a firm believer in subtle warfare).
I can do all of these even if I have no allies (unthinkable in MP) and am far behind in tech (also a bad career move). IMHO, a little bit of good, old-fashioned sneakiness will triumph over some moron who tries some weak, standardized 'Cavalry Rush'. Actually, now I'm looking forward to MP so I can use this against people...

[MysteryMan]

D'oh! I made an error in all combat calculations: I forgot to factor in the fact that my defenders are FORTIFIED. Thusly he attacks my 6+ cities at a 6-8 (plus my terrain advantages) and my 12+ cities at 6-10. My bad.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by planetfall
2 turns of air cover? Never seen this. 1 turn for relocate. 2nd turn for activate AS. 3rd turn start AS. BUT, for AS of LZ need to have carrier(s) within 2 tiles.

PF, we are in agreement. I meant two turns of AS from Carriers, then the now-rebased and now-AS local Fighters kick in.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by MysteryMan
Since I develop my cities, most of them have a Cultural Influence of at least 3. This means that often his cavalry cannot enter my territory AND attack my city on the same turn.

Even if your cities are well developed cultural-wise, your AI opponent can/will often do the same with HIS border cities. AI cavalry attacking a city of mine on the first turn of a war is a very common thing in my experience.

[MysteryMan]

Ah, but that's where the forts come in! See, if the AI bypasses the forts, he has cut himself off from escape, and if he attacks them, he slows himself down. Either way you get a VERY large strategic edge for the price of the worker's time building the fort (you should have workers to spare by this stage of the game), and a few units. Since the AI tends to send in all his reserves in one big rush, even IF you lose a city (hell, even if you lose TWO) you have his entire invasion force trapped. Neutralize them - the key is terrain, NEVER fight a battle until you have examined the terrain. NEVER attack if you don't have the advantage. Trick your opponent into attacking you when you have the defensive edge.
I believe the quote here goes something like "The wise general first removes himself from all possibility of defeat, then waits for his enemy to deliver himself." Actually that's not the quote word for word but the MEANING of it is extremely important. There is NOTHING you can do to secure victory, but there is EVERYTHING you can do to prevent defeat. Once you have prevented defeat, the first time your opponent errs, he is YOURS. This game allows you to be MUCH more subtle and effective than "send in twice as many soldiers as he has." Victory does not necessarily go to the strongest, the fastest, the biggest, or the smartest.
Victory goes to the person who understands the fundamentals of warfare. Period.
CAVEAT
Try to avoid building forts adjacent to oceans, or else you MUST garrison them or risk some pesky AI dropping his dudes into there. Then your clever defensive tactic backfires big time....

[Ben Williams]

Below are the unit changes I think would improve the game in my humble opinion.

More than anything I think late industrial-to-modern warfare has to be changed. Marines are almost totally useless and gurrillas more so. By that point in the game you probably have all the resources you need, so just building tanks is the way to go. Tanks and mech infantry should be much less powerful when not on flat turrain, making way for non-mech units to play a role in war, especially when the country has a lot of forests, jungles, hills and mountains. Conversely, I'd raise attack on both marines and gurrilas and give gurillas an attack and defense bonus as well as movement bonus in difficult turrain. Think about Vietnam, we had tanks but couldn't use them in the thick jungle, so we had to use infantry and marines. This would also up the importance of helicoptors, which are practially useless as it stands because there's nothing worth airdropping by the time you get them.

Bombard should be much more powerful as units get more advanced. Stealth bombers should hardly ever miss units out in the open, though they should have a more difficult time on difficult terrain (hills, jungle etc...). Stealth planes should be more expensive and more powerful, in the real world a stealth bomber costs $2 billion, more than its weight in gold. Sams should take shots at cruise missiles, which should have a greater range and be able to be fired from ships. Finally, infantry and other foot units should get a defensive bonus against bombard when fortified or in fortresses, signifying that they've "dug in."

[vmxa1]

If the bombardment got any stronger than it is now, it would be unbearable. Have you seen it in 1.12?

[civ_italy]

RADAR ARTILLERY. Very powerful and technological... but what's the use if it cannot follow the army (mech inf + modern armour): more movement points !! In CONQUEST bombers can finally eliminate enemy units, the former result of bombing was very frustrating, you needed land units to finish the job.